Speedkill

I give you, Amy Sullivan:

It’s not that Obama works himself into a rant when he talks about science. He’s still calm, cool Barack, after all. But for him, it is almost strident. Sometimes it’s his language–today he complained that “We have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas.” And sometimes it’s just his tone–when I listened to the stem-cell speech, his voice sounded uncharacteristically hard, although in reading the text later I noticed a sensitivity to dissenting beliefs that hadn’t come through in the delivery.

…

Whatever the reason, it worries me somewhat because science is one of those areas in which Obama’s generally nuanced intellectual approach would be helpful. The anti-science, anti-expert mindset is obviously troubling. But so too is the idea that science is always an unquestioned capital-G good and that anyone who raises questions stands in the way of progress.

The only way you could get that sentiment from Obama’s speech is if you haven’t been paying attention the last eight years. Or if you’re an idiot. Republicans have relentlessly politicized scientific issues: global warming, environmental dangers, obesity research, stem cells, sex education, etc. Sullivan says “most people who worry about the use of embryonic stem cells [are not] engaged in ‘effort[s] to advance predetermined ideological agendas.’” Setting aside why “most people” is the relevant category, the debate in Washington has been politicized by anti-stem cell research advocates looking to advance their agenda. They lie about and distort the efficacy of embryonic stem cell research, rather than simply argue that it’s not moral, which is what they believe. I assume Sullivan knows this, given that she wasn’t born yesterday. Even if you want to say they have a legitimate moral issue, they’ve very much not stuck to that argument (because it’s patently ridiculous and few agree with them).

We’ve had eight years of Republican abuse of science for political gain and corporate favor. We haven’t had eight years of respect for science and nuanced moral arguments about scientific research. To worry about pro-science “stridency” when Obama forthrightly condemns past abuse is absurd in our current situation.

But Sullivan is really worried that respect for science will make it harder to push religion-inspired policy. If we have to rely on empirical evidence, my absurd superstitions won’t be good enough to justify my preferred policies! Let’s just back up a little on being all pro-science. It’s very important that we allow fairy tales to influence our discourse.

Then again, religious concern trolling is what Sullivan is best at, so should we be surprised?

Jeff Obama, Science

I will never understand why people who incorrectly predict the apocalypse (Jesus, William Miller, Hal Lindsey, etc) influence society like they do.

This week, there are festivities dedicated to one of those false apocalyptic prophets. One would think this settles it:

And he said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’

Maybe this:

‘But in those days, after that suffering,
the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light,
and the stars will be falling from heaven,
and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
Then they will see “the Son of Man coming in clouds” with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

‘From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.

Versions of those statements are fairly well-attested, with similar sayings showing up in the other gospels. Alas, Jesus’ cult went on to bigger things.

Humans are not particularly rational. I’m not, you’re not. The best we can do is strive to make sure our beliefs have some grounding before we reach our intellectual limits. We create institutions and follow certain methods to help ourselves. But we have to understand our limits and realize that people will come to different conclusions. Coercing everyone into coming to the same conclusion will not work nor is it desirable.

But that does not imply that individuals must treat all views as equally valid. It does not mean that all views have merit. It’s depressing how often critical discussion of religion is met by calls for tolerance, which in this context implies criticism is somehow less valid speech than religious expression. It serves to cover a belief that the standards we use to judge philosophies and world-views in every other area of our society are not valid here. And of course, those standards are not abandoned for a reason, but because the person lacks the introspective ability to question his or her belief that feelings are a reliable indicator of external reality.

And why would you want that ability? If you can’t believe without evidence, you can’t create a supreme being in your own image. I’d love to believe in a god who’s responsible for love and music, who gave us these amazing minds and expects us to use them against anyone who would oppress his children. It would make me feel better to believe in a supreme being who reflects my values. But what reason do I have?

We’re not rational. We hold irrational beliefs. But the rotten core of religious liberalism is the rejection of the idea that we should strive for something better. In some ways, that’s worse than the odious beliefs on religious conservatives.

Jeff Religion

Oh noes, the gays are coming.

I believe that statement works whichever way you want to take the last word.

It’s only a matter of time before they enslave us all. The NOM website is great. Their FAQ especially:

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

I like the irrelevant mention of African-American opposition to gay marriage. Disagreeing with African-Americans is clearly racist, so don’t you call me a bigot! They’ve even come up with a new argument for slavery: it’s not new, so whose rights are they taking away? They never had them! It’s wrong now, but at the time it was a-ok.

Jeff Religion

Mark Hemingway is an idiot. That’s what I assume from this, anyway. He quotes this approvingly:

Abstinence-only education doesn’t actually exist. It’s a term used by critics of abstinence education rather than purveyors, who prefer, simply, abstinence education. The term “abstinence-only” attempts to create the perception that abstinence education is a narrow and unrealistic approach. While such loaded terms are to be expected of activists, the media usage of the term is regrettable.

Seriously? I thought the purpose of that term was to describe it accurately. Abstinence education is included in all sex educations programs. “Activists” object to programs that teach abstinence exclusively. They’re not against abstinence education. The unique feature is the “only” part of abstinence-only sex education. Conservatives want to try and hide behind inaccurate language and make their unrealistic social engineering scheme look less stupid.

There’s another quote in the article he cites that’s pretty interesting:

The liberal caricature of abstinence education is of school marms rapping the knuckles of teens and telling them—day after day—not to have sex. In fact, a review of curricula for abstinence education programs shows surprisingly little about sex—and a lot about building self-esteem, understanding risky behavior, finding responsible partners, and growing a family.

I don’t know, I though most of us were aware that these people try to dress up their lies with supposedly engaging activities. I had to sit through a presentation promoting abstinence alone in high school (this was separate from our normal sex ed class, which also included abstinence). It certainly wasn’t school marms imploring us to not have sex, but it was still absurd.

I can’t believe conservatives are still on this bandwagon. Oh wait, yes I can. They love to use the phrase “social engineering” to describe liberal social programs, but they’re all too happy to try out common sense-defying schemes when their magic book says so. Never mind that we know they don’t work. If we just close our eyes and wish hard enough (also known as praying), human nature will magically change! Any time now. Really.

Jeff Religion, The Right

The Vatican attempts to defend itself from atheists:

“We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things,” he said on the sidelines of the conference.

But while the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as “absurd” the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God, he said.

“Of course we think that’s absurd and not at all proven,” he said. “But other than that … the Vatican has recognized that it doesn’t stand in the way of scientific realities.”

Do these people not pay attention? I’ve never read anything by Dawkins that says evolution disproves the existence of gods. He does say that evolution is an explanation of the the history of life that doesn’t require a god. That’s what his “intellectually fulfilled atheist” comment means. The Vatican can say a god gave us souls at some point or kicked off the process, but such a claim isn’t a worthwhile explanation of anything in the history of life.

Jeff Religion

So according to a study of nearly a thousand school districts in Texas, just 4% teach sex education in a correct and useful way. A quote:

For example, one school district utilizes a skit that compares using a condom to committing suicide. The skit titled “Jumping Off the Bridge” concludes: “Giving a condom to a teen is just like saying, “Well if you insist on killing yourself by jumping off the bridge, at least wear these elbow pads — they may protect you some?” Knowing that STDs can kill and that there is at least a 30% failure rate is like helping the teen kill them self [sic]. It is a lie to call condoms “safe sex.” If there is a 30% failure rate of condoms against life threatening diseases, then calling them a way to have “safe sex” is like “helping” someone commit suicide by giving them elbow pads to “protect” them or finding them the safest spot from the bridge to jump.’”

I didn’t know “Don’t Mess with Texas” was a public health warning.

Jeff Social issues

So I mentioned that I have a copy of Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great about Christianity? D’Souza probably doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously, but what the hell. I read chapter sixteen, which is about why miracles are possible. This is an issue that is fairly complex, given that you have to define a miracle and figure out how that interacts with your understanding of the laws of nature and if we even know those laws. D’Souza sets up the argument against miracles as such (pg 185):

The strongest argument against miracles was advanced by philosopher and skeptic David Hume in his book Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hume’s argument is widely cited by atheists; Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens both invoke it to justify their wholesale rejection of miracles. Hume argued that

1. A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature.
2. We know these laws through repeated and constant experience.
3. The testimony of those who report miracles contradicts the operation of known scientific laws.
4. Consequently, no one can rationally believe in miracles.

He goes on to say that according to Hume, we can’t really know the laws of nature, so violations of our laws are possible, and miracles are therefore possible by Hume’s own logic!

Neat, huh? Except for one thing. David Hume’s argument is more accurately called an argument against the justified belief in miracles. Here’s what he says:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation….

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish….’ When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

The core is the oft-quoted line from that passage: “…no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish….” Hume’s skepticism doesn’t contradict his argument against miracles, because his argument is against belief in miracles. I don’t have Dawkins’ book on hand, so I can’t say for sure if he mangles Hume’s argument in the same way, but I don’t believe he does.

I don’t necessarily disagree with D’Souza’s claim that miracles are possible. I don’t really care. There’s an interesting discussion of all of this here. I do believe that for us, when considering the miracles of the Bible, Hume’s maxim is a good argument against believing them.

Jeff Religion

I realize I’m like a month late, but I just got around to reading Dirk Benedict’s rant about the current BSG. You can’t not love an article with a line like this:

Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Hamlet does not scan as Hamletta. Nor does Hans Solo as Hans Sally. Faceman is not the same as Facewoman. Nor does a Stardoe a Starbuck make. Men hand out cigars. Women “hand out” babies. And thus the world for thousands of years has gone’ round.

Lots more craziness. It’s great.

If you’ve run into the Internet “movie” by the name of Zeitgeist, you should give this a read. It’s a take down of the first, anti-Christianity, half of the film, where the creator tries to claim Christianity is some kind of astrological cult. It’s almost as silly as the rest of the film, but I hadn’t seen a good rebuttal until now.

Jeff Culture, Religion

My inner gaming geek is winning out over my inner politics and religion geek, so Street Fighter 4 is winning out over blogging, probably for most of this week. Not that I post much anyway these days.

On the other hand, I now have my very own copy of Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great about Christianity?, so that could provide some fodder. Reading that will make me irritable, though.

Jeff Blogging, Religion

So the last post got me looking more at that Pew religion survey, which is still fascinating. A few items:

• 70% of those polled say many religions can lead to eternal life, including most evangelicals(!)
• 60% of the country believes in a personal god.
• Religious affiliation declines with education (you knew I was going to sneak that in, right?)

In any case, the survey isn’t new, but I always find something interesting when I look at that information.

Jeff Religion